Life is a Popularity Contest

Nicole and Tara both wrote insightful blog posts about the culture of social media and the thought-processes behind users on the networks.  While reading the posts, I kept thinking about how everything that they were saying was true. Nicole suggests that Instagram is a game with each participant aware of their highest number of likes, constantly striving to achieve a "higher score."  We are all guilty of playing the game!  My amount of likes: 149.  

Whether we admit it or not, we post things to win the approval of others, and it is hard to disagree with this simple facet of social media usage.

However, I do not necessarily see any points that they are trying to make as negative.  As Tara suggest, maybe we should have a "who cares?" attitude.  But, in most situations in life, this outlook simply does not exist - whether we pretend to care or not.

I feel that this discussion could easily relate back to a post that I wrote a few weeks ago about online identity management.  The idea behind it is that we shape ourselves online to win the applause of others, and therefore we don't share everything that we may want to.  We may want to post something  despite the fact that we may not get more than five likes, and show that "we don't care" about this so-called popularity contest.  But the truth is that we probably want.

Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and other networks are all public social media platforms.  Everything we post is public.  Just as in any public situation, we filter what we share, because as humans, we seek the approval of others.  I wouldn't tell a joke, if I didn't think that others would laugh.  I wouldnt present an opinionated thought to my peers, if I didn't think that others would agree or that it would cause them to think.  And I surely wouldn't show my friend a picture on my camera from today, if I didn't think that she would care about it at all.

So no, I don't think it is "crazy and ridiculous" to always post as if social media is a popularity contest.  On the contrary, I think it is logical and parallels most real-world networks. We are human.  We want what we share to be admired and appreciated, whether it is online or not.  If we did not, would we share it? 

The Untapped Market for Marketing

Today, my e-mail inbox consisted of common e-mails that I seem to receive daily.  Emails  from my professors- updating grades and assignments, from the rebel mouse site- delivering me my fellow students' blogs, from organizations that I am involved in- informing me of recent happenings, and from Tobi- providing me with my online shopping distraction for the afternoon.  Notice that Tobi was the only email from a company that was trying to sell me something.

So I began to question:  Why don't more businesses utilize email as a tool to market their product or service?  The answer came quickly to me: most of them do, but they just aren't effective in doing so.  Upon several occasions, I have approached the checkout counter of a store and have been asked for my email information.  I always politely decline releasing my email to the salesclerk, because I can already foresee the flood of annoying emails that I will surely receive, directly after providing them with my contact info.

What's worse is trying to unsubscribe from the irritating messages.  You're taken from one link to another, until you forget your original intent.  Once I have finally unsubscribed, I usually never think about those promotional emails again. AKA they failed.

So how does a company make an effective email for their brand?  I think the main key, as with any advertisement in general, is to not annoy or overbear.  As a college student, I already receive about twenty emails daily, so I do not appreciate the five repetitive and useless emails that I used to receive from Old Navy, telling me about their 'awesome' deal on jeans that week.

I would narrow it down to one email daily (at the very most).  That's one of the main reasons that I am still subscribed to the mailing list for the online clothing retail store, Tobi.  They consistently send one email a day, around the same time.  That way, I know what to expect and when to expect it. They do not bombard me nor do they pester me with a constant insistence to visit their site.

Another way that Tobi's emails have successfully gotten me to buy their product is through their simple, consistent, and easy-to-navigate design.  They provide me with a daily list of new clothing items that I can scroll through effortlessly and click on, if I am interested.  The list consists solely of pictures, which may be another main factor of the message's success- lots of pictures, little words.

Also, more recently, a huge part of producing an effective design is making sure it is compatible on mobile devices.  This article presents a study that found that mobile email viewing has jumped to 51 percent, but only 12 percent of company email newsletters and messages are compatible with mobile devices.  Personally, I check and read most of my emails on my iPhone and later return to them to respond on the computer.  With the Tobi emails, I am able to easily view them on my mail app on iPhone, without delays from downloading or significant layout changes from the desktop design.

I think that mobile email, and email in general, may be a top contender as a medium for marketing with huge potential.  If a company can create a system where they engage the potential consumer through a user-friendly message, without pestering them, then they will surely see positive results.  

It's time to ignore the myth that e-mail is becoming outdated and take on the network as a tool for marketing- even if this tool may need to change the face of their emails from the past.  Businesses need to encourage consumers to subscribe to their mailing lists, once again, and offer an enhanced email experience that is beneficial for both customers and providers alike.

And if email isn't your thing, feel free to unsubscribe. (it should be easier with gmail's new feature)

I Pledge Allegiance to the Truth

According to the "Journalism Project," the first principle of journalism is its primary obligation to the truth.  With today's social media society, most citizens are journalists in their own way.  But, we all know that not everything that people post is true- we've all heard the saying, "you can't believe everything you read on the Internet."

For example, take Jimmy Kemmel's wolf prank.  He caught a video of a wolf roaming a random hallway, and got an American olympian, Kate Hansen, to tweet the video, as if an actual wolf was roaming the halls of the olympic village.  It only took the video a few minutes to go viral and capture the attention of news organizations, who shared the bizarre spotting.  It was a hilarious prank and extremely effective in sparking talk amongst social media users about the conditions in Sochi's olympic village.

Although I wasn't surprised about the gullibility of the social media world, it was interesting to see well-established news and journalism organizations fall for the prank.  And quite frankly, it's a little frightening.  It made me think of the potential fallibility in our everyday news.

While obviously this example caused little to no harm, there are situations where erroneous news has more serious implications for those who believe it.  As an example, one could cite the media behind the current condition of Venezuela.

Social media has allowed the anti-government protests to reach individuals all around the globe, causing an uprise of support for the protestors.  Disturbing images of violence have been released by independent individuals, paired with trending hashtags like "#prayforvenezuela."  These images are powerful and need to be shared with the world, but a considerable number of the most popular images have been proven to be fake.

This stirring image of a man hopelessly surrendering to police forces has caught fire in the Venezuela social media campaign, but it was actually taken in Brazil in 2013.  While the unrest in Venezuela is undeniably alarming, fraudulent photos may be exaggerating the conditions.  It also causes an onlooker to question whether or not those who share these images are doing so as a justification for their violence.  

So, the question is:  How do we distinguish truth from lies?  

It's going to be a tough task on our own, but thanks to a new system, called "Pheme," we may receive some help.  Pheme is basically a lie detector, tailored for social media platforms.  It's features include scanning posts and rating them on a scale of accuracy. Five universities are teaming up to work on developing the system, and it is projected to be finalized in a year and a half.  

I'm sure that the system will have its flaws in detecting the lies behind some news releases, but I think, overall, it will help in promoting truth in journalism.  It may not be able to invalidate Kate Hansen's tweet, because it came from her personal account, but it would easily discredit the fake photos used to support the Venezuelan rebellions, because the images can be traced back to previous events or times.

Just as we have to filter things we hear from others before we believe them, we need to filter the things we read before we believe them- or maybe just make Pheme do it for us.

Video Virtual Reality is a Reality

In class last week, Professor Robinson urged us to contemplate what would enhance our video viewing experience.  After breaking up into groups and collaborating, the class came up with some interesting proposals.  Some simply wanted clear, faster, and free video.  My group (with obviously the best idea) wanted video and television funded by interactive and viewer-controlled advertising. But the overwhelming majority of my classmates desired a device on which they could watch video anywhere they wanted, in any position.

One group suggested a bracelet design with a 3D projection of the video, but the more plausible design was of wearable glasses (maybe google glass in mind).  The class unanimously agreed that all propositions were foreseeable developments within five to ten years.

Well.. I would say that we may have overestimated a little bit.  

Those who sought to perfect their viewing experience with glasses that play video, look no further.  There's no need to wait five years, or even one year for that matter.  Avegant has created "Glyph"- a personal viewing system, resembling a set of headphones.  Glyph actually does operate as headphones, until the user pulls the visor over their eyes, enabling them to watch any media connected - similar to the class' idea of viewing glasses.

Sounds pretty awesome to me, aside from the fact that the Glyph comes at a steep price of $499 dollars.  While it may not be too expensive to some, I would not place personal value on the device at half of a thousand dollars.  I experience most of my video intake through my laptop, which is usually positioned only one foot further from my face than the headset would be.  Perhaps though, avid movie and film watchers would disagree.  

It may be a fun new tech-toy, but I think its popularity among individuals will be based on personal preference. For example, I think I would enjoy being able to completely lie down to view my nightly episode of "Grey's Anatomy," but I'm not sure if my eyes would necessarily appreciate something so close.  And I'm not sure my wallet would either.

Another point to take into consideration is that the Glyph's visor would inhibit a wearer's ability to multitask.  With the band occupying the majority of vision, there would be little room for a sneak peak at your twitter feed or a quick response to a text message.  This would necessitate the user to adjust the visor to complete an additional task.  In the fast world of constant communication and social media interactions, would potential consumers be willing to surrender valuable multitasking time to focus their full attention on a television show or movie?  My guess is that they wouldn't.

WHEN MY PHONE BEGAN TO DIE, I BEGAN TO LIVE

We keep revisiting the theme that, as a society, we spend too much time on our phones.  In a previous post, I discussed missing the moment at a UNC basketball game, and recently, Nicole shared a humorous video of Coca-Cola's solution- a social media guard.

The social media guard resembles a dog cone used to prevent dogs from biting or nudging an infected or injured place on their body.  The social media guard blocks the wearer’s ability to see their phones, consequently, forcing them to live in the moment.  The video depicts it as an "eye-opening" experience.  I had a similar eye-opening experience the night of the UNC vs. Dook game.

As we made the winning shot, and stormed out of my friend’s house to nearby Franklin Street, we all reached down for our phones to capture the moment (obviously).  As I looked down at my phone, the battery icon in the corner displayed an almost empty battery, with the horrific caption "6%."  Knowing it would be wise to preserve my battery, in case I lost the group members, I put my phone back in my purse, where it would remain the entire night.

I like to pride myself on being not as attached to my phone as most of my friends.  While I love staying up to date on my twitter feed just as much as the next avid tweeter, I absolutely hate taking pictures.  In fact, I do my best to avoid the photo shoots that inevitably take place every time my friends and I participate in anything social.  I am a firm believer that focusing on the picture makes us miss the moment, but I am still guilty of being attached to my phone at all times.

Last Thursday was probably the first time in a long time that this attachment was broken.  With my phone on the verge of death, tucked away in my bag, I was able to focus all of my attention on the moment- and it was the perfect time for my phone to die.

I was no longer worried about getting the best SnapChat or seeing the dook hatred on twitter.  I saw every second of students cheering, climbing stoplights, hopping over celebratory fires, and chanting the tune of the alma mater.  And I cannot imagine not getting to fully experience my first Duke victory as a UNC student, because of trying to capture it on my phone.

And guess what?  I still made an appearance in some of my friends’ pictures, so I still got to prove I was there.  I still got to wake up to 36 SnapChat stories of the crowd on Franklin, so I still got to relive the night the next morning.  I still found an awesome YouTube video about rushing Franklin, so I still got a capture of the moment.  But most importantly, in my mind, I had captured the memory.

So my advice:  Let others do the documenting thing.  Chances are, if you don't get a picture of the event, someone else will.  For once, put your phone down and be present in every moment.  For once, let your phone die … and live.

Go Heels

Read Receipt .. on Email?

Most are familiar with the iMessage feature on iPhones that allows you to notify senders when you open their message.  The first thing I did when I got my first iPhone was flip this  “read receipt” switch to "off," so that no one could see when I open their message.  It’s not to protect my privacy or to allow me to ignore them without their knowledge.  I disabled the read receipt feature, because I wanted to have more control over my messaging interactions.

But what if you didn't have the option to control a sender's ability to see if you had viewed the message or not?

Streak has developed an e-mail extension that allows users to track e-mails that they have sent- without the recipients consent.  Used on Google chrome, the extension includes organizational features that give users more authority over their e-mail experience.  They took things too far though, with the tracking component included in the program.

The e-mail tracker notifies users when the recipient opens their email.  Not only can they see if the recipient has read their message, but they can find out when, where, and how many times they have viewed it.  And the worst part, the recipient will never know if the emails are being tracked.

In my opinion, this crosses many privacy boundaries.  I would not feel comfortable for others to know my viewing activity on my account.  If every sender were able to see my email habits, they would often think that I was ignoring them.

On the weekdays, I am in class and at work almost every day from 9:00 to 8:00.  I don't have time to reply to e-mails that don't require short responses throughout the day.  However, my OCD does not allow me to tolerate e-mail notifications on my phone.  Whenever I receive an email, I HAVE to open it, to rid my phone of the notification.  I usually just skim it over, delete it if it isn't important, and flag it if it is something that I need to revisit later.

Most of the time, these flagged e-mails sit unanswered in my inbox for up to twelve hours.  A user of Streak, who may have sent one of these e-mails, could easily become frustrated if they saw that I had viewed their e-mail six hours ago with no reply.  I simply do not want these senders to have the perception that I may be ignoring them.

I am not okay with Streak's email tracking capabilities, solely because they do not allow me to choose whether I want my emails to be tracked.  I am sure many others would agree with me. I think that, ultimately, the feature will fail.  Gmailers will surely complain to Google, and I'd imagine that for the feature to survive, it would have to notify recipients if they were being tracked.

While the tool may be a smart move for sales and marketing, letting any user have access to it questions personal boundaries.  Should these users have the authority to cross these boundaries?  I definitely don't want my emails being tracked.  Do you?

"The Doll that Started it Alll"

Critics have swarmed the news to make Barbie's latest career as a swimsuit model on the cover of Sports Illustrated.  She's been a teacher, a doctor, and a mom. So why not a model?  Striking a confident pose with the caption "#unapologetic" beside her, Barbie refuses to say "I'm sorry" for being the pretty and perhaps unrealistic portrayal of beauty that leads to most of her criticism.

And I may get backlash for this.. but she shouldn't have to apologize.  While she does display impossible body proportions and standards of beauty, she is a doll. She's not real.  Growing up, my memories with Barbie were of me assigning her new roles.  I tested my own aspirations through Barbie and made her become whatever I wanted to be at the time.  When I wanted to be a mom, I gathered Barbie and her children and took them for a ride around plastic grocery isles.   When I decided I wanted to be a teacher (a dream now abandoned), I placed Barbie in front of a mini chalkboard and commanded a classroom of stuffed animals.

Never once during my playtime with Barbie was I pressured to think about how I needed to physically resemble her one day. I did not want to be Barbie because of her long golden hair or her perfectly sculpted legs.  I wanted to be Barbie, because she could be virtually anything.  And to this day, I would love to be able to do all the things that Barbie could do.

So.. Barbie shouldn't apologize.  She's been a beauty icon for decades, along with an inspiring example that an individual has the ability to do anything that they put their mind too.  Her image has remained consistent and unchanging in society since the middle of the twentieth century.  Altering her appearance to appease critics in recent years would just send an entirely new negative message to adolescents - modifying oneself to match the expectations of others.  And I think describing Barbie as 'unapologetic' conveys the point  that they should never make these changes.  No one should have to apologize for who they are or what they look like.  This is a message that should be preached beyond adolescence, well into adulthood.

The cover urges all onlookers to be true to themselves and to be confident in who they are.  However, I'm not absolutely comfortable with Mattel's choice of using Sports Illustrated as their medium.  Sports Illustrated leads to an entirely new issue of the sexualization of Barbie.  Barbie is obviously a doll targeted for a young female audience, and placing her in the realm of objectified sex idols muddles her status as a model for these young girls.

But Mattel knew what they were doing when they teamed up with Sports Illustrated- much like Coke was aware of the potential public response to their recent Super Bowl commercial. Mattel's provocative marketing move has stirred up talk around a doll who has recently experienced a drop-off in her ratings and sales.  They've created controversial chaos.  And they aren't apologizing  for it.

AM Radio: An Endangered Species

remember this? yeah.. me neither

I stumbled upon a post this morning entitled "Can we save AM radio?"  Initially, I was shocked, because I honestly didn't even think AM radio still existed. In fact, I couldn't recall one time in my entire life that I had intently listened to AM radio.  So.. could we save AM radio? Absolutely not, I thought.  However, I continued to read the post to see what they could possibly propose.

The key to saving AM radio was Ajit Pai, an avid AM advocate and coincidentally a member of the Federal Communication Commission.  He created new legislation for the FCC that would help preserve the seemingly ancient waves of AM radio. With the interfering signals of the overwhelming presence of wi-fi signals, cell phones, and even motor vehicles, it is near impossible nowadays for  clear waves from an AM station. The policy consists of six components, with the main component allowing AM broadcasters to file for an FM translator, solving the problem of an unclear AM signal.

But.. how is this saving AM radio?  In fact, it is doing the opposite.  It is transferring AM stations to FM, therefore eliminating the need for an AM network altogether.  While Pai, I believe, is attempting to support those small AM broadcasters that he holds so dear to his heart, he may be setting them up for ultimate failure.  How will the AM stations compete with the already established FM channels.

Another point of consideration is radio listener preferences.  The face of radio has transformed over the decades.  Its main focus is undoubtedly music.  The days of turning to radio for the latest news are far gone.  The accessibility of television news networks and the internet beg the question of the plausibility of AM radio as a competitor for news.  Why would someone turn on their AM radio to patiently wait for updates on a current basketball game, when they could pull up twitter or ESPN on their cell phone and receive updates instantly? - Not to mention the personal commentary that tends to offer a humorous touch to the updates.

My point is that AM radio is an endangered species.  While a few proponents of the source, like Ajit Pai, may try to take measures to save it, I think they're efforts will fail.  If anything, FM radio will develop a more AM-like component, but I don't even predict that as probable. AM is fuzzy. It's low-defintition in a HD world.  

It won't be long until AM radio will surely enter the list of extinct media.  Until then, the article brought up an interesting point about its potential as an un-regulated medium of communication.  As it falls from endagenered to extinct, regulations will loosen and broadcasts will be given free-reign of content sharing.  The author describes it as a paralleled "wild west" that "artists and other cultural opportunists will inhabit and reinvent for their own devices."  Pai suggests that "if you care about localism, you should care about AM radio."  This revolution of AM radio before its complete downfall would be a localist movement in itself.  

Dating Advice From Facebook?

In honor of the big day tomorrow, Facebook conducted a research study based on relationship data from users in fifty of America's largest cities.  It provided information on the best and worst cities to find love and on the duration of already established relationships.  For example, Colorado Springs offers the highest probability for "relationship formation," and the city with the highest percentage of single individuals is Detroit, Michigan.  

It also provided information about top restaurant check-ins, along with the length of Facebook users' relationship.  One of my favorite facts was that almost half of all Facebook relationships that last three months, are likely to survive at least four years.  Also, I was interested (but not surprised) to see that the number of breakups was at its highest during the summer months.  Maybe social media hasn't changed the mentality of college students, like Professor Robinson suggested.  Perhaps, they still wait until those summer months a part to let their relationships fade out.

Some may attempt to discredit the facts presented by Facebook as not an accurate representation of the American population.  While it may not be exact, over fifty percent of the U.S. population are Facebook users, and I bet the majority of them are the younger portion of the population, to whom these dating statistics would prove more relevant.  One problem that I have with the accurateness of the study was users who don't regularly update their status or take it seriously.  For example, just the other day, i discovered that I was engaged on Facebook.  My Facebook has probably listed me as engaged for over two years.  Many users simply forget about their relationship status or don't care.

Overall, it wasn't the statistics presented or the facts discovered that really interested me about this study.  I was more interested by the various utilities of Facebook today.  It is no longer just a forum for connecting with others and sharing our thoughts and ideas.   Its extent now reaches over research pursuits and information gathering.  All the things that we can discover with social media is incredible.  We can predict who will win an election and what will be the next big trends.  And now, spreading into our personal lives, we can predict relationship probabilities.  

Guess it's time for me to move to Colorado.

The Low-Down on Online Identity Management

PsychCentral has made a bold prediction about the future of social media networks.  Because of "identity management,"  PsychCentral suggests that future generations will turn their attention towards messaging apps that will allow them to mass communicate with a limited number of individuals, such as close friends.  In turn, "big" social networks will suffer a loss.

Identity Management, put simply, is controlling how an individual presents themselves to people around them.  Online, identity management consists of filtering your thoughts and opinions to make sure they fit into the mold that you have shaped for yourself.  In other words, it is choosing what you want to share.  PsychCentral suggests that, with intimate social networks where you are connected with close individuals, identity management necessitates less time and effort- essentially, you can "be yourself." 

The study attributes its claims to the falling number of contributors on Facebook.  They assume, whenever networks encourage users to connect with people that they don't "really know," they share less.  This decline in posts or comments is said to stem from identity management.  We filter ourselves to please our followers.  Sometimes we walk on eggshells on social media in order to avoid offending someone.  I agree with this, at least in most cases- There are times when people purposely reveal their offensive opinions to prove a point or create a rise out of others.

I know from personal experience that I often find myself filtering what I decide to share with others.  I want to please my followers and friends, without making any offensive claims that will result in backlash.  (We all know what happened to PR Justine with her Africa and AIDS tweet).  Because of my desire to craft a creative tweet, post, blog, or even photo caption worthy of praise, I don't share everything that I want to.  This affects the quantity of my contributions.  

For example, my twitter feed yesterday was filled with posts about the sad lives of duke fans.  Each tweet sported the crafty hash tag "#dookfans," with witty evidence about why duke sucks.  I had to hop on the bandwagon, because this seemed like an easy way to claim my fifteen minutes of fame.  I thought about what I hated more than ANYTHING, and the answer was immediately clear.  I quickly tapped away the perfect tweet:

Just before I reached for the tweet button, I daydreamed of the record number of favorites and retweets that I would receive from this tweet.  Suddenly, I remembered the only reason why I care about the ugly shoes in the first place: They are all around me.  Here at UNC, when warm weather strikes, Chacos season begins. Even some of my best friends wear Chacos. They are aware of my opinion of their contribution to fashion suicide, but.. that does not mean that I need to compare them to duke fans or share my distaste so publicly.  I weighed the pros and cons of sharing the tweet, and decided against it.  

This is just one example of the thought process that may go through many users' heads before sharing their thoughts in a public forum.  But the key is that these networks are public.  Just as in any real public setting, it is normal to filter your thoughts before sharing them with others.  Ever heard the saying "think before you speak?" So, no, I do not believe that identity management will be the ultimate demise of large social networks.  On the contrary, I think identity management adds to their value.

The intent of these networks is to connect a large base of people publicly, and users typically know this when they sign on.  I think that the identity management behind social media contributions may decrease the quantity of potential posts, but it definitely increases the quality.  Identity Management saves us from an overwhelming number of annoyingly irrelevant or opinionated posts.  Although their presence is still known in the social media world, they occur much more infrequently than they potentially could. 

 In addition, without users sharing every idea that comes to their mind, offensive or not, a certain worth is added to the contributions that are offensive or extremely opinionated.  Whether you agree or disagree with the post, commentary that takes a stand on something controversial sparks interest in onlookers.  If we were constantly surrounded by these posts, we might become desensitized to some of the greatest social media speculations of our time.